Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so human is still a reptile (ancestral state) according to this criteria. good to know.

No, the human taxonomic family is Hominidae. Humans and reptiles share being vertebrates (a sub-phylum of Chordata).

 

[xianghua]

You will never definitively prove creation as it would be contradictory to the Creator's words itself.

God says, Hebrews 11:6 "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

Therefore one would have to conclude that if Man was to find indisputable facts to support the creation story there would be no need for faith, therefore unable to please God.

Inversely, if you have faith in God and believe in the the Creation story you should never worry about science coming up with the same definitive proof to support its side.

Just thinking out loud here.

actually the bible say that we need to know that god exist: "וידעת היום והשיבות אל לבבך". and we can know since we have evidence for his existence. you can find one of those evidence in my signature link.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The explanations (i.e. hypotheses or theories) for why the observed phenomena occur are not empirical facts or truths; they're not provable.

Then you are saying evolution is not provable.

Thanks.

 

[xianghua]

No, the human taxonomic family is Hominidae. Humans and reptiles share being vertebrates (a sub-phylum of Chordata).

but this isnt what you said here:

"Species and their subspecies always remain with their ancestral family"

means that a new species will always stay in the same original family.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So why should we provide any proof for evolution to you?

Then don't prove it, it's not like I ever expected you to.

And that's as good an excuse as any. Sure beats science doesn't deal in proof.

 

[Jimmy D]

OK, I'm convinced, looks like I should believe evolution without proof.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

That has got nothing to do with what I posted, I don't care what you believe and I don't think I even mentioned evolution once.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

Have you ever used sarcasm here on the boards?

 

[Jimmy D]

Have you ever used sarcasm here on the boards?

Probably.

(sorry, I was trying to think of a sarcastic response but came up short )

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then you are saying evolution is not provable.

The theory of evolution is not provable, because it's an explanation rather than a fact, but the fact of evolution (the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations) has been observed repeatedly, so it is proven.

There is a sense in which the 'survival of the fittest' principle underlying the ToE is provable - algorithmically. You can prove that, given a population with heritable traits that are variable and have an influence on reproductive success, successive generations will preferentially inherit the traits and variations of those traits that benefit reproductive success. IIRC, this can be done mathematically, but it's rather complicated; the simplest proof is to run a minimal computer simulation.

 

[pitabread]

I'm not clear on why you think a creator is constrained to begin with?

I don't think a creator would be constrained. That's my point.

It's creationists that keep arguing otherwise.

 

[inquiring mind]

Why can't the evolutionary process simply be the way your god "creates" species?
I wouldn't agree off course, but at least that wouldn't force you to simply ignore mainstream biology.

If you know you’ll disagree beforehand, it’s more a non-compromising statement than a question really... so I won’t even attempt to address it as such. But, I’ll make a statement too, I’m not forced to ignore mainstream biology, and don’t entirely, that’s why I said in my opening post that I was puzzled because some could be “completely” sold on evolutional biology alone (a one in a gazillion chance – zero in my book) as the answer, and then consider creation by almighty God a fairy tale.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

but this isnt what you said here:

"Species and their subspecies always remain with their ancestral family"

means that a new species will always stay in the same original family.

There's no contradiction. As I said, the original family of humans is Hominidae. All our descendants will be in that family.

Reptiles belong to a class (several ranks above family), Reptilia. Humans belong to a different class, Mammalia.

So humans are not reptiles and never were.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The theory of evolution is not provable, because it's an explanation rather than a fact, but the fact of evolution (the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations) has been observed repeatedly, so it is proven.

Then science (the observations) does prove evolution? at least that is the claim...correct?

 

[Speedwell]

If you know you’ll disagree beforehand, it’s more a non-compromising statement than a question really... so I won’t even attempt to address it as such. But, I’ll make a statement too, I’m not forced to ignore mainstream biology, and don’t entirely, that’s why I said in my opening post that I was puzzled because some could be “completely” sold on evolutional biology alone (a one in a gazillion chance – zero in my book) as the answer, and then consider creation by almighty God a fairy tale.

Not a "fairy tale." Creation by God is regarded by theists and atheists alike as an unfalsifiable proposition which cannot be disproven by science. The "fairy tale" is that it happened 6000 years ago in six 24-hour days.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's creationists that keep arguing otherwise.

Can you point to an example or 2 of that so I can get a better idea of exactly what they are arguing?

 

[USincognito]

evolutional biology alone (a one in a gazillion chance – zero in my book) as the answer,

Oh really? How do you calculate thst "chance"?

 

[klutedavid]

This doesn’t need to be a scientific or religious dissertation, simply what you feel about the subject.

For me, I love the Bible and science, but this wondrous universe coming about spontaneously from singularity (the meaning of which I barely understand) in a big bang, without the mighty hand of God; a “single cell something” rising up from a mud hole (primordial soup of some kind) “on its own” in baron, inhospitable conditions and becoming “the common ancestor” in a linear progression to the varieties of everything on a beautifully complex earth, including man... well, just step back from all the jargon and defense for a moment and look at that picture. I know there are a lot of Christians who enjoy investigating God’s creation, I do myself (my handle is inquiring mind), but how people are completely sold on that “one in a gazillion” possibility, and at the same time regard the biblical creation by an Almighty God (however and by whatever means He desired to accomplish it) to be a fairy tale, really puzzles me.

Genesis is not a step by step, year by year, scientific account of the history of the earth.

The purpose of Genesis is not an education in cosmology or genetics.

Genesis depicts creation in a six day format, a reader friendly version of creation.

If God wrote the actual history of the earth and of life into a written account, no one would have ever understood the account anyway.

Genesis is not a literal chronology of the human race, Genesis is an overview of the descent of the Jewish race. Abraham had two sons, somewhat gives the game away.

Genesis has been edited, Genesis has been colored in, yet the blueprint of God's creative genius shines through.

The creation vs evolution arguments, are a distraction from the purpose of the scripture.

The scripture is all about Jesus, that is the fundamental purpose of the scripture.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Genesis is not a step by step, year by year, scientific account of the history of the earth.

The purpose of Genesis is not an education in cosmology or genetics.

Genesis depicts creation in a six day format, a reader friendly version of creation.

If God wrote the actual history of the earth and of life into a written account, no one would have ever understood the account anyway.

Genesis is not a literal chronology of the human race, Genesis is an overview of the descent of the Jewish race. Abraham had two sons, somewhat gives the game away.

Genesis has been edited, Genesis has been colored in, yet the blueprint of God's creative genius shines through.

The creation vs evolution arguments, are a distraction from the purpose of the scripture.

The scripture is all about Jesus, that is the fundamental purpose of the scripture.

Sneaky

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then science (the observations) does prove evolution? at least that is the claim...correct?

Evolution has been observed - i.e. changes in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations have been observed. Those observations are the evidence that prove the fact of evolution (by the definition of 'proof' you supplied).

That is not the same as saying the Theory of Evolution, that explains the fact of evolution, has been proven. Such theories are not provable facts.

 

[klutedavid]

Sneaky

I disagree of course.